What the letter authors completely forgot to say was what the CSA and Mr Goddard will actually do now to protect Melanie Shaw and others like her from police and institutional abuse. The important issue of dealing with intimidation and harassment of witnesses and whistleblowers was simply ignored.
On July 27, 2015, I emailed a letter addressed directly to Judge Goddard of the CSA Investigative Committee.
My letter was addressed to Judge Goddard personally because it concerned the serious issue of protecting Melanie Shaw, the whistleblower of abuse at Beechwood children's home in Nottingham, and other child abuse victims and whistleblowers of similar abuse, from intimidation and harassment. I detailed specific examples of the intimidation and harassment faced by Melanie, and pointed out that the intimidation and harassment was being perpetrated by the police and other public authorities who have a special duty of care to protect vulnerable child abuse victims.
I ended my email by asking how Judge Goddard would take prompt and effective action to protect and support Ms Melanie Shaw from threats, intimidation and harassment (including by Nottingham Police, who have failed her to date), and pointed out that her personal responsibility under Annex A 2(a) of her professional code was to “provide appropriate support to survivors”.
After the usual automated email reply saying it would take 15 business days for a response, I received a letter dated August 18, 2015. It was signed but did not include a name or position. The letter was sent from an organization called “CSA Information and Engagement Hub,” an organization I had never heard of, and was clearly a “whitewash” response.
The well-constructed document uses a variety of covert language, including “recorded by the Secretariat,” “there has been a large amount of correspondence regarding her case,” “confidential,” and “those who come forward will be supported throughout the process.” The document mentions “the Truth Project” and “trained experts.” “We take the protection of those who work with us very seriously and will do everything we can to support them throughout the process,” it says.
What the letter authors completely forgot to say was what the CSA and Mr Goddard will actually do now to protect Melanie Shaw and others like her from police and institutional abuse. The important issue of dealing with intimidation and harassment of witnesses and whistleblowers was simply ignored.
Luckily, the letter had a phone number on it, so I took the opportunity to call and find out who the letter was from and what the role of the mysterious “Hub” was. And there I got my first surprise – the woman who answered the phone knew nothing about “The Hub” and had no idea who to contact to solve the mystery.
But after a few gentle questions, the mystery was partially solved. The woman who took the call was not a CSA staff member at Goddard, but an NSPCC staff member. Neither she nor her boss had any direct knowledge of the hub, its role or its staff. But I learned an important point: the NSPCC acts as a gatekeeper to Goddard and its staff. The calls are received by the NSPCC and presumably “filtered” by the NSPCC. At this point, what due diligence has Ms Goddard done with the organisation to ensure that its staff are not involved in child abuse? For those who express shock and horror, several abuse victims have told UKColumn that they believe some NSPCC staff have been involved in abuse for years. Let us also not forget that the NSPCC is “partnered” with the Metropolitan Police on child abuse in the UK. It is a very close working relationship.
I emailed Mr Goddard’s CSA seeking clarification on matters relating to the hub and received another letter dated 10 September 2015. In that letter, someone called Cheryl Mendez, who had written to me previously, was described as the head of the information and engagement hub.
Mr Mendes also said the Hub “followed up with individuals, including making referrals to the independent national policing team where safeguarding risks were identified”. Again, there was no mention of Melanie Shaw and the need for the Goddard inquiry to protect her from systematic police harassment and abuse.
However, the September letter omitted some interesting points about the Hub's relationship with the CSA and Mr. Goddard himself. I picked up on these and wrote a response to Mr. Mendez. My letter included these key points:
“Mr. Mendes,
In a letter dated August 18, 2015, it was stated…
“Your letter has been passed on to me for response.” The obvious inference from your statement is that Judge Goddard has seen my letter and passed it on to you for “action.”
In your letter of 10 September 2015, you told me: “The Information and Engagement Hub does not have a formal description of its remit, but the Chair agrees that its remit is to oversee information coming into the Commission through the helpline and communications from the website, and to follow up with individuals, including making referrals to the independent national policing team, if safeguarding risks are identified.”
From the above statements I suspect that my letter of 27 July 2015, addressed directly to Judge Goddard about the serious safeguarding issues of child abuse victims, was never delivered to her or, in fact, read.
My letter specifically asked Judge Goddard to make a personal statement about “how you (Judge Goddard) will take immediate and effective action to protect and support Melanie Shaw from threats, intimidation and harassment, including from Nottingham Police, who have so far failed her.”
I asked this question in light of Mr Goddard’s personal responsibility under Annex A 2(a) of his professional code of practice to “provide appropriate assistance to survivors.”
Can you now confirm that the responses of 18 August and 10 September 2015, given without written terms of reference for the Information and Engagement Hub, for which you are responsible, are personal responses from Judge Goddard?
Because this issue is of great public interest and the safety of child abuse victims remains a matter of great public debate, I look forward to your written explanation.
Sincerely,
Brian Gerrish
Of course, I received a very efficient automated reply confirming that my communication had been received, and now I will wait for probably another 15 working days. Meanwhile, Melanie Shaw and other abuse victims are being bullied, harassed and abused by the police, local authorities and child welfare services who abandoned them in the first place – and who are allegedly at the heart of the Goddard Inquiry itself.
Not wanting to sit idle, I decided to do some more research on Cheryl Mendes. Imagine my surprise to discover that she is employed by Theresa May's Home Office as a Crime and Police Policy Adviser and has previously worked at the Home Office as a Diversity Adviser and an Expert on Gang and Youth Violence. Given this background, it is interesting that Mendes does not particularly address the issue of police harassment of victims of child abuse.
If we look further we find that John O'Brien, Director of Safeguarding at the Home Office, stated in a letter dated 26th November 2014 that…
“The (CSA) inquiry is independent and reports outside the Home Office, however the Home Office will submit its final report to the Home Secretary for publication. Therefore, once the committee and its new chair are appointed, it will determine how the inquiry will proceed, including its methodology and how it will engage with survivors to help conduct the inquiry. The inquiry is supported by a secretariat which reports directly to the committee.”
Brian continues: “The Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry Liaison Team is housed within the Home Office's Department of Safeguarding and is currently led by Helen Griffiths and Cheryl Mendes. The team assists the Home Secretary in the process of appointing the Chair and ensures that victims have input into the appointment. The team also acts as a link between the Home Office and the Inquiry Committee.”
So here is our view. The Goddard Commission claims to be independent. Queen Bee Judge Goddard is protected by Home Office officials and the “trusted” NSPCC. Mr Mendes is tasked with “managing” the Commission's contact with victims, survivors and other members of the public.
Ms. Mendez is clearly acting outside her authority, whether she is the chief executive or simply not qualified for the job. She does not seem to care about victimized witnesses and whistleblowers. Is she answering for Judge Goddard or is she acting to protect a police force and a system that continues to abuse its power and the public? We will have to wait and see.
I would like to end by asking whether the Goddard Inquiry is simply a large-scale investigation looking for evidence of child abuse and whether the state could act swiftly to dash any hope of a proper police investigation or a proper criminal trial. Perhaps I am being too cynical, but we will see.
